Britain

High-speed trains

The Concorde of the rail industry

It is easy to be beguiled by the vision of modernity that high speed trains offer. The thought of zipping across the country at more than 250mph is tremendously appealing, nipping up to Leeds, Newcastle, even Edinburgh for the day. If it is technically possible to go faster, surely every effort should be made to do so?

This is the notion at the centre of the £32.7 billion high speed rail project which was given the go-ahead by Justine Greening, secretary of state for transport, on January 10th. Britain's second high speed rail link is known as HS2, a far longer, more controversial and more expensive project than the country's first speedy link, which runs from London to the channel tunnel.

This scheme is not Ms Greening's own creation - transport ministers on both sides of the chamber have backed it. Britain is following a path that Japan first pioneered in the 1960s. France, Germany, Spain and more recently Italy and China have also invested very large sums of money in bullet trains, which travel at more than 250mph.

Presenting the latest stage of Britain's plan in parliament on Tuesday, Ms Greening referred to this as a “transformational scheme” which will “deliver prosperity” and “regenerate the regions”. This is a project “fitting for the 21st century”, says the minister. Many question the economics of this line, but in isolation, the space-age vision of it is exciting. And Ms Greening is keen that if others can do it, so should Britain.

In fact, the secretary of state for transport is more sensible than this, and has looked into all the reasons and need for a line. The department makes clear that it believes an expected capacity crunch on the west-coast route means that some kind of new line will have to be built within the next decade or so - and a high-speed one is not so much more expensive than a traditional line.

Think of China, which is currently determined to put people on the moon, not because of any demonstrated utility in doing so, just to show that it can. Britain's bullet-train ambitions also remind me of Concorde, which for more than 25 years shot through the sky from London to New York in three-and-a-half hours, half the time of a regular flight.

Many things did for Concorde: the price of tickets (around £8,000 apiece), the cost of maintenance, terrorism, recession, a decline in business travel and objections to the noise of its supersonic engines, not to mention a tragic fatal crash. When engineers first found a way to make a plane fly that fast, though, it must have seemed inconceivable that a niche for such a service would not be found. But that's exactly what happened.

Despite Concorde's withdrawal in 2003, the beautiful dream of supersonic flight lives on. Several companies are developing technologies for private supersonic jets, according to an article by one of my colleagues in September. They haven't had much take up yet, but that could yet change.

Like Concorde, high speed rail involves incredible feats of engineering, and I still hope and believe it will have its day. The geography of some countries is better suited to it than others: population centres in America could be brought far closer by speedier train services, for example. Britain, by contrast, is a small island whose cities are fairly close together, relatively few internal flights and is already well-served by a dense network. Its non-high-speed trains are also already faster than many of its European counterparts — and on some lines could go faster still if signalling technology were improved.

Speed is something the human race aspires to. From the 100-metre sprint to the fast cars of the Formula One circuit, there is a basic assumption that speed is a boundary that should be pushed and pushed. But being technically possible does not necessarily make it commercially viable. I admire the vision that wants to transform a country, bridge regional divides and improve services. I just don't think that high speed rail has made its case for doing those things just yet.

Commenter William Cuthertson mentions the old Varsity Line. This was discussed here on The Economist some months ago. It casts light on the political nature of infrastructure investment and the tendency of rent-seeking metropolises to keep on growing beyond the bounds of efficiency.

The Varsity Line existed until 1967 but was ripped up at the direction of the Westminster Government which insisted that all Oxford-Cambridge traffic should go via London instead. Such decisions – like HS2 and other London-centric policies - lead to ever more crowding and congestion in London itself, which must be remedied by ever more spending (such as the 15 billion pound Crossrail scheme).

Contrary to William Cuthertson’s claim, the economic viability of transport infrastructure is not indicated by the willingness of private enterprise to build it. In developed countries such infrastructure has significant consumer surplus and positive externalities which may warrant it long before it could ever make a commercial rate of return. Where the private sector is involved it is almost always subsidised by the government, often in ways which are deliberately hidden from public view. The Channel Tunnel, for example, would not have proceeded as a private venture had it not been propped up by a guaranteed rail usage agreement with the state-owned SNCF and (the then state-owned) British Rail. When construction costs overran budget, it was propped up further by gratuitous extensions of its concession period.

Infrastructure decisions are political, and spatial proximity matters when it comes to political rent-seeking. Politicians are human beings who inevitably look more kindly upon those with whom they have regular social contact. In a country where political power is concentrated within “lunching distance” of the Cabinet, London and Londoners will always direct national resources into perpetuating their position at the top of the pile. The vast outlay of public money on the London Olympics(*) is another example.

Infrastructure decisions are some of the ways in which politically dominant cities grow and perpetuate themselves by extracting rents from politically less powerful regions, irrespective of efficiency. The result of this is to attract ever more people into the metropolis as they seek to be close to the source of political rents rather than being rentees.

On the Bagehot blog the other day there was a discussion on whether Scotland is subsidised by England. One of the interesting facts which came to light was this study which showed that the region receiving the highest per capita public spending in the United Kingdom is . . . . . . . . . London!!!

- - - - - - -

(*) On the topic of state-sponsored sport and art, see also this recent article on the Prospero blog on how to be a dictator. Lesson 3: “Everything good must come through you.”

State-sponsored sport and art is another way of cultivating a group of celebrities (always valuable for propaganda purposes) who depend on the London regime for their very existence, and will be reluctant to criticise its rent-seeking activities.

Even more important and more expensive than high speed rail, is re-making and re-zoning cities to be more dense. Aligning communities with high density routes and corridors that can be served by mass transit and rail. And allowing a low-carbon footprint lifestyle.

It is as easy or as hard as moving families to cities, high density flats, and in walkable neighborhoods.

" I just don’t think that high speed rail has made its case for doing those things just yet." Well its been around for forty years. You're either for public investment in infrastructure or you're against it. For maximising social returns or only interested in private returns. Forty years ago economists even thought that government simply gets in the way of private sector investment. They didn't realise that without certan forms of government investment, the private sector struggles to generate adequate returns.

There is NO doubt that Concorde would have transformed first & business class aviation - had it been built by the US.

However, history clearly records that as soon as the US SST project failed - leaving France/UK with a monopoly on commercial SST - the yanks (as is their way) worked to make SST unviable.

A variety of dirty tricks were applied to protect US airlines from Concorde's super new way to travel: ranging from access restrictions at US airports; flight restriction in US airspace; mandatory exhorbitant ticket prices; the list goes on. The UK negotiators rolled over on everything (no surprise there, either).

The result was that the Concorde project immediately became financially unviable: all the options and orders from other carriers were cancelled. France & the UK retained only a nominal number.
Inevitably, development was abandoned on future generations/versions of the plane (quieter, more efficient, more space).

And the irony is that, when Concorde was decommissioned, the US squabbled to have examples for its museums!

I think the Corcorde would have been a great success if it was the brain child of the American companies such as Boeing, McDonald Douglas or Lockheed Martin. Unfortunately, the Corcorde had French/British heritage and the US conveniently banned it from important American airports to protect their commercial aircraft industry.

I believe the Concorde was an excellent first generation supersonic aircraft. Nobody could expect it to have solved all the problems such as noise, costs etc. If Britain and France had the financial clout like the Americans then, I am convinced Concorde would eventually be a success. It is a pity that nobody would know what a Mark V Concorde would look like !!

I am in rare agreement with rewt66. Public investment should be justified on a purely rational basis, and HSR often fails this test. It tends to only make sense in dense corridors like Japan where there is a fairly large middle class population which can make economical use of it. As China's middle class grows, it will probably be well served by HSR.

As for Britain (and California), let the accountants alone make the call. I suspect that the tens of billions at stake would be better spent on more prosaic yet broadly useful projects like local and regional BRT and light rail. Let's face it. The 99 percent need efficient local transit options. Not loss-making halo projects that they may use for a once-a-year or once-in-a-lifetime joyride.

A useful test is to ask is that if the project is economically viable, would private enterprise build it? Private enterprise built the truly inspirational channel tunnel, but the profits, if any, are minimal.

The Economist also pointed out some years ago that no one ever made money out of the railways in the 19th Century, although the building of the network transformed business and society. Likewise, one has a certain agreement with Warren Buffet that the Airlines have been so economically dysfunctional that it would have been better if the Wright Brothers had both been killed during their maiden flights. The Economist also made the same point about the internet after the DotCom bust.

But in this case, I am more reminded of Cyril Northcote Parkinson's observation that the time spent discussing a budget is inversely proportional to the sum being spent. It has all been decided with indecent haste, only an idiot thinks this beast will stay in budget.

If the Government really wants to improve the rather poor quality of life of its residents, then perhaps they can spare a million to replace the now demolished station in the market town where I work, so that I can get from Oxford to home in 35 minutes and not the 95 minutes it presently takes me by car. The track is still there, on the old Varsity line to Cambridge. Now, that really would make a difference, and 19000 such similar improvements for the equivalent minimum cost of HS2 would truly transform the country.

1. Only one plane crashed thus its crash record was a victim of statistics.

2. Airbus didn't even exist while it was being designed and produced: it was a product of BAC and Aérospatiale of which the former is now one of the biggest defence conglomerates in the world and the latter became Eurocopter and EADS. Neither, I repeat, neither went bankrupt nor were at any stage in danger of going bankrupt

3. The cheque was picked up by the British and French governments and was sold to British Airways for £1 a plane.

There are facts and then there are silly lies. Knowing the difference stops one from making a fool out of ones self on a website!

On economic viability to properly do those sums you need to include the generous subsidies granted to airlines that don't pay the full cost of the carbon they dump in the atmosphere, and of cars that pollute and congest our roads mostly for free. In the more medium term it's also worth thinking how we will get around once the world economy recovers and the oil price resumes its relentless upwards trajectory. It won't be short-haul flights, at least not for the cost conscious.

Looked at in those terms investing in railways makes great economic sense. There's only so much you can achieve upgrading existing lines, or reinstating branch lines between small towns, although both should be done if there's a case for them. But it's projects like the Channel Tunnel and HS2 that make a real difference.

China HSR and other rail or expressway expanded plans are painting in a white paper.In 1980's,76% trains in China still were steam locomotives and lag far behind the average level of the world by any measure,similarly in highway etc.

But UK and US aren't.They has aleady built perfect transportation systems(including highway, etc.) comparatively in last 100 years.In 1980s,steam locomotives had become antiques in history museums for a long time.

Concorde was successful to a certain degree,at least it had a very different story with the Titanic. High-speed train won't become another Titanic in UK,after all,it is train,not ship.

A useful test is to ask is that if the project is economically viable, would private enterprise build it? Private enterprise built the truly inspirational channel tunnel, but the profits, if any, are minimal.

The Economist also pointed out some years ago that no one ever made money out of the railways in the 19th Century, although the building of the network transformed business and society. Likewise, one has a certain agreement with Warren Buffet that the Airlines have been so economically dysfunctional that it would have been better if the Wright Brothers had both been killed during their maiden flights. The Economist also made the same point about the internet after the DotCom bust.

But in this case, I am more reminded of Cyril Northcote Parkinson's observation that the time spent discussing a budget is inversely proportional to the sum being spent. It has all been decided with indecent haste, only an idiot thinks this beast will stay in budget.

If the Government really wants to improve the rather poor quality of life of its residents, then perhaps they can spare a million to replace the now demolished station in the market town where I work, so that I can get from Oxford to home in 35 minutes and not the 95 minutes it presently takes me by car. The track is still there, on the old Varsity line to Cambridge. Now, that really would make a difference, and 19000 such similar improvements for the equivalent minimum cost of HS2 would truly transform the country.

My fear is that the line is built to Birmingham, and then the money and political will runs out and the track further north is postponed indefinitely. This leaves one with a very expensive railway allowing slightly quicker travel to a city that was already under 2 hours away.
Considerable timesaving will only come when the likes of Manchester, Leeds (and I would hope eventually Glasgow, Newcastle, Edinburgh) have been reached by the line. For that reason I agree with Labour's proposition that now is the time to commit to a line further North as well.

The "incredible feats of engineering" have already been performed, and the technology is proven. Moreover, unlike the concorde, it is more efficient and comfortable than its competitor (short-range air transport). Although I do question whether it makes sense over such short distances as London-Birmingham.

I never thought Concorde would have much of a market. I remember the first time I was inside it in a display before it was certified for commercial flight: so small even I hit my head. Twice. But more importantly, the distances flown, mainly trans-Atlantic, meant you could shave time but not eliminate the travel day.

High speed rail will have a market. Period. It makes some cities into commutes, even lunch or dinner visits. It connects communities of suppliers and thinkers.

HS2: An ambitious project for an ambition-less nation- a nation set on promoting ambitious foreign countries' rail and high-technology firms at the expense of developing indigenous British public (& commercial goods) transport research & development, design and manufacturing capabilities!!

... A 200-mile-long showpiece and 'mega-pedestal' for what will be perceived as entirely non-UK engineering and manufacturing skills and expertise...

France and Germany's indigenous high-technology design and manufacturing industries will be the chief beneficiaries of any high-speed rail lines- as presently proposed- within the UK...

... while the UK's own companies' design, innovation and manufacturing capabilities in public & commercial-goods transport sectors will be grievously damaged...

Has the country lost its collective mind??
--------------

Instead of going ahead with HS2 as currently planned, wouldn't it be far better public policy and use of tax-payers' funds for govt to put monies towards remedying the well-known shortcomings of the UK's existing rail and road networks AND ALSO developing indigenous UK rail transport research & development, design and manufacturing capabilities- if necessary working in collaboration with proven-as-competent, successful firm(s) such as Hitachi and Kawasaki???

Comparing it to the Concorde SST may be a superficial complement...or a grave insult.

The Concorde was a halo project bringing supersonic transport to jet age travelers. It was sleek as a jet fighter. But cramped, noisy and inefficient. Landing in a city, it was noisier than New Year's Fireworks.

Less than 20 copies were made, and those were obligated subsidized government purchases.

IT was never commercially viable or even close. And its crash record is among the worst of any commercial plane.

It single-handedly nearly bankrupted the Airbus parent company. IT may be the biggest manufacturing fiasco of the century. It IS the Webster's Dictionary definition of an Albatross.

The unsexy narrow bodied single aisle Boeing 737 by contrast is the Toyota Corolla of the skies: The most successful commercial jet in aviation history. Not high performance but safe.

There are men you date and men you marry. Knowing the difference is wisdom.

High-speed Rail in the United Kingdom should not get built if it ends up functioning as a show-piece for France & Germany's technological & industrial capabilities while the UK's rail transport R & D + design capabilities appear laughable!!!!

Considering that South Korea has created an indigenous high-speed (& other types of) rail transport industry in less than 10-years- & every year is exporting rail transport products & systems- why couldn't the United Kingdom do the same??

Some of the next 1/2 decade's govt spending- perhaps collaboratively with overseas mega-corporations' &/or Sovereign Wealth Fund (SWF) contributions- should be put towards the establishment of a high-speed & other types of rail & public/commercial-goods transport R & D technology centre/campus in the UK... if necessary with the UK govt as a temporary minor shareholder in the venture....

What part of HS2 (and the coalition govt's other rail & public/commercial goods transport plans) will lead to UK exports of rail & public/commercial goods transport related equipment & systems??

I suppose we ought to give this two and half cheers for good intentions and hope (futile, I know) that the costs can be kept to £33 billion and that estimates for resulting economic activity hold good. We are where we are.